All that criticism doesn't sound like it's good for your friendship.
What do you mean by 'animals exploited for oil'? Are we talking habitat loss; death in machinery; animals being killed and some part of them being used to produce oil; 'pest' animals killed by oil companies in or around their facilities; animal slave labor; animal testing in oil refining? In what way are they exploited, specifically?Originally Posted by cornernote
I think there is misunderstanding in the ways in which animals die by our cars.
Animals who are exploited for oil to drive cars often literally suffer to death.
Animals who are hit by cars often literally suffer to death.
Animals who are exploited for oil to drive cars are often killed in ways that are just as intentional, preventable, and most importantly, painful.
Also, there is no unit of measure for any of these things so comparing if cars or meat causes more harm in ways that is preventable or painful is not productive.
I agree with where you are coming from, but I disagree with the logic you used to get there.
Hmmm... I wouldn't say that about the word exploit. Exploitation is using someone/something for the benefit of the user. So animals killed to produce something would be exploitation (though I don't know that that happens in oil production), but accidental deaths due to machinery is not exploitation, because they are not using the animals. Animal testing is exploitation (I don't know if that happens in oil production), but habitat loss is not (though I would say the user is exploiting the land).Originally Posted by cornernote
Ok, I see. The fact that they were "born by our hand to die by our hand". I think I am understanding that that is the key in the usage of the word exploit.
I will ponder some more. Thanks again.